The only conceivable reason to ban construction in Ramat Shlomo is that it will be given away to a Palestinian state. If Ramat Shlomo is given away, the same thing will happen to other areas the Jews built up in Jerusalem. The total number of Jewish evictees in Jerusalem will thus reach 260,000.

The Quartet would make the Nazis proud.

No Palestinian leader can forfeit his people’s right of return. A peace treaty with Israel is impossible, but a Palestinian state can be established de facto through agreements on specific issues with Israel, which would leave the right of return unresolved.

Abbas explained his refusal by citing the alleged Israeli plans to build in Ramat Shlomo.

Of course, the terrorists have a right to refuse the negotiations, which are futile, anyway. But why does the Israeli government continue tax transfers to support his regime?

The eight Palestinian terrorist factions based in Syria rejected Abbas’ peace talks with Israel. Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, financed with Israeli tax transfers, refrained from public opposition, but is not to be expected to lay down its weapons.

By talking to Abbas, Israel negotiates with the only Palestinian group which does not threaten us, and ignores all the groups that actually fight us.

The talks are utterly senseless. Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer on Jerusalem and refugees, saying that the “gaps are too wide,” yet Netanyahu offers even less than Olmert did.

Netanyahu is also demanding Palestinian security guarantees, which Abbas cannot deliver. Besides, security is impossible in a situation in which, for example, a plane landing in Palestine could attack Tel Aviv 9/11 style within about three minutes. By the time IAF recognized that the pilot did not err, it would be too late to shoot down the plane.

They have fought us for 150 years, and we have defeated them utterly—and now we are happy that they have agreed to talk to us.

That returns us to the nineteenth-century solution. At that time, the Zionists did not dream of possessing Jerusalem, and only implored the Russian czar and German kaiser to take the city away from the Turks. The post-Zionist leaders of today still cannot believe that we can hold our most sacred place and ignore the Arabs.

That arrangement would be ridiculous in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict . Unlike the British government and the IRA, Israel and the PLO maintain working relations, and the PLO depends on Israel for everything from money to border permits.

One of the measures is fighting a ban on Palestinian laborers introduced by some (regrettably, very few) Israeli settlements for nationalist and security reasons.

Erekat’s salary comes from Israeli tax transfers.

Abbas ‘only’ wants a three-month Jewish construction freeze in East Jerusalem, which would confirm that Israel is ready to negotiate away its capital. With negotiations underway, the Israeli government won’t be able to resume the construction on a meaningful scale.

Abbas has also demanded that the talks start from Olmert’s maximum offer, which included the Temple Mount.

Erekat voiced Abbas’ “minimum” demands for restarting the peace talks. Israel must agree to admit any refugees who want to return to their long-gone grandparents’ homes, potentially doubling the Arab presence in Israel. Israel must also agree to dismantle all settlement blocs and give away Jerusalem.

Neither Abbas nor any other Palestinian leader can sign a peace treaty with Israel that forfeits the refugees’ right of return or does not include Jerusalem. There is simply no basis for peace talks with Palestinian Arabs.

Are we mad to subsidize the PA?

Though most commentators concentrate on the Palestinian demand for a construction freeze in East Jerusalem, their more important demand is that negotiations be resumed where they left off in December 2008, when Olmert offered Abbas the widest concessions ever, including the destruction of dozens of Jewish villages and abandonment of the Temple Mount to the Muslim enemy.

Abbas wants more than that.

Peres has suggested that Abbas climb down from the high tree he got into expecting aid from Obama. Netanyahu also treated the Palestinians as monkeys when he announced that in any future agreement Israel will retain full control over the demilitarization of their state.

The Palestinians retorted that not a single Israeli will be allowed in their state, which raises the question of why Israel needs a peace which is actually no more than a disengagement.

Both sides are expected to rebuff Obama’s envoy Mitchell and slip back into the comfortable hostility which requires no concessions from either of them.

Obama’s approach is eminently sensible but unworkable: Netanyahu, with his remnants of Jewish decency, is not yet ready to abandon Jerusalem and the settlements. Also, he would be unable to prevent a revolt in his own faction once he announced such a decision.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian governments are too weak to sell the unavoidable concessions to their people.

On a positive note, Obama has returned to Bush’s promise to allow Israel some rectifications to the 1948 border—essentially, to keep the settlement blocs.

So simple. So idiotic.

Netanyahu’s government cannot agree to dismantle the settlement blocs. Abbas cannot agree to let them stay.

In plain words, Abbas will send a negotiator to conduct fruitless talks without admitting his own role in the negotiations.

Netanyahu reportedly has agreed to consider the 1948 borders as “the basis” for negotiations. Of course, they always were the basis, without Israel saying so explicitly.

The Palestinians trumpet that as an important concession which has made them ready to return for another round of futile negotiations in which neither side will be able to agree on “land exchange” because Israeli settlement blocs are located in places that are strategically inconvenient for a Palestinian state.

Knowing full well the futility of the exercise, Egypt commended Netanyahu’s “bold position.”

Israeli leftists need desperately to start peace negotiations with the Arabs before the ten-month moratorium expires. With talks underway, no one would dare to resume construction in the settlements.

But UNSC resolutions are not binding and are commonly ignored. Both Israel and the Palestinians ignored the 1947 partitioning resolution (Israel ignored the borders, Arabs the partition). Israeli “occupation” of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria has been technically illegal ever since 1967, when no country recognized our territorial gains. A new resolution would not increase that illegality in any way.

All countries understand the impossibility of a simplistic return to the 1948 borders, which would involve uprooting 360 to 600 thousand Jews and our capital: the Western Wall, the City of David, and the government buildings in Jerusalem are also located beyond the 1948 borders.

Having the UN recognize a Palestinian state might benefit Israel by allowing us to stop subsidizing the enemy and start bombing it as a sovereign state.

The peace process is suspended until the Palestinians forget Abbas’ demands to Israel.

Abbas’s plan is taken verbatim from the Syrians. They too, demand Israeli agreement to abandon the Golan Heights as a precondition of negotiations.

Very soon, the UN and EU will indeed recognize Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, as indeed has been their position for the last 42 years.

In theory Netanyahu is right, as the Palestinians have a nasty habit of renouncing interim agreements, and large conflicts are generally settled in a single swoop. In practice, the Palestinians cannot renounce their imagined right to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, while Netanyahu’s cabinet won’t approve such deal; thus a demand for a final-status agreement equals rejection of peace on Palestinian terms.

The EU statesmen expect that Israel would go to war with Palestine if they were to recognize the 1948 borders and Palestinians tried to claim that land. The EU, naturally, does not want a flare-up.

Israel must now understand that the Quartet’s insistence on ceding Jerusalem to the Palestinians is not set in stone, and that the world would accept Israel holding on to its capital. It would be a surprise for the world if the Jews abandoned their capital to the natives.

As the things stand now, the UNSC won’t make the decision, but even if it does, its decisions are not binding. Russia, for example, continues to occupy the Japanese Kuril Islands.

Unilateral Palestinian statehood would be great for Israel, as it would transforms the occupation into a border dispute.

Israel only negotiates with the Palestinians because they terrorize our population, and the Palestinians only negotiate with us because we keep building in what is potentially their land. Neither party will cease and desist.

Likewise, Nazi Germany accused Poland, and Russia accused Finland of refusing the peace offered to them. Just like Israel, Poland and Finland were “only” required to abandon their lands.

Three thousand years ago, the Amorites issued a similar peace ultimatum to the Hebrews. Happily, at that time we had Judge Yiphtah.

Mitchell is a close acquaintance of Beilin’s. Though Beilin veiled his call in the most polite terms of preserving Mitchell’s integrity, which has been shattered by the recalcitrant Netanyahu government, the Peres-Beilin camp is clearly dissatisfied by Mitchell’s relatively sensible approach.

Just as he did in Northern Ireland, Mitchell refrains from pushing, but rather lends himself to both sides so that their offers come ostensibly from America. This approach worked well in Northern Ireland, where the parties rejected any offers that came from their opponents but were willing to accept the same offers once they came from America, a neutral party.

When Beilin announced his intention to retire from politics, we immediately suspected that Peres was cooking another Oslo agreement. Then, too, Beilin worked behind the scenes. Peres no longer controls the government as he did at the time of the Oslo accords, and cannot provide his poodle with a sinecure free from Netanyahu’s influence.

Beilin’s involvement makes sense of Israel’s secret negotiations track with the Palestinians.

Beilin currently spends much of his time in the United States. Together with his close friend, anti-Israeli extremist Rahm Emanuel, he apparently plans to replace Mitchell with a more hard-line figure who would be able to bend Netanyahu.

Livni claims she rejected Olmert’s peace offer because it would “flood” Israel with Palestinian refugees—a mere 2% increase in the number of Israeli Arabs. Livni also claims to oppose the internationalization of Jerusalem, which is odd coming from someone who supports giving up Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

Abbas did not sign Olmert’s draft because IDF withdrawal from the West bank would result in Hamas toppling Abbas in a matter of weeks.

It remains unclear why Israel needs peace with the Palestinians on their terms after having defeated them repeatedly throughout seven decades of warfare.

So much for Arab promises.

It remains to see whether both sides will adhere to their understanding of the agreement once they return to the Middle East.

Iran and Lebanon won’t sign peace with Israel, regardless of any concessions she makes on the Saudi peace plan. With enemies like those, Israel’s peaceful relations with Saudi Arabia or Qatar are irrelevant.

Indeed, Abbas cannot be bold enough to refuse the peace negotiations with Israel the US urges on him. Scores of meetings among Netanyahu, Barak, and Mitchell over the settlement freeze, which is in de facto force anyway, also make no sense.

We’re certain that Netanyahu is conducting secret negotiations with Obama over Israeli capitulation. Only a right-wing government can implement such a defeat: had he been in the opposition, Netanyahu would have decried similar defeatism by Kadima. Not incidentally, the Sinai and Gaza evacuations were conducted by right-wing governments.

Speaking to Der Spiegel, Meridor rejected a return to the 1967 borders. What great courage! In fact, the Israeli government humbly asks for border rectification in the range of merely 3% of the 1949 armistice line.

Meridor also claimed that the Knesset has reached a consensus on united Jerusalem—only to offer to start negotiation on Jerusalem with our Palestinian enemies. For the Israeli establishment, “united Jerusalem” means just the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall—and the Arabs take the Temple Mount.

Abbas, however, has refused to conduct any peace talks with Israel until Netanyahu honors Olmert’s promises to the terrorists.

During the secret Oslo negotiations, Peres was similarly upbeat in his public statements, despite the failure of the concurrent Washington talks.

A decade ago, Mubarak lamented in a Newsweek interview: what can poor Arafat do with such terrible people around him as Barghouti?

The Israeli left developed a rapport with Barghouti while he was in jail. Many other high-profile jailed terrorists rose to a similar cult-status among the Left, who were able to associate with them almost daily and were deeply impressed by the terrorists’ determination, which contrasted with their own nihilistic post-Zionism.

Three years ago, Barghouti laid out his vision for peace with Israel, which is no different from Hamas’s: 1967 borders, Jerusalem, and the return of the refugees. Israelis fail to recognize that Palestinian public figures are popular but powerless. Just as Arafat was a symbol of the Intifada but could not quench it, so Barghouti cannot push Palestinian terrorist factions to accept a peace settlement. Worse, unlike even Abbas, he is a lone man without significant institutional support, and his Tanzim group is only a marginal terrorist organization.

With the usual Arab gall, Fatah demanded that Israel release Barghouti “for the sake of the peace process”—that is, despite Fatah’s rejection of any sensible peace with Israel just days ago.

Is there a secret undercurrent to Obama’s talks?

Faisal rejected Obama’s approach of incremental confidence-building, arguing instead for a comprehensive settlement. Indeed, no major conflict has ever been solved by incremental negotiations, but only by expansive deals.

Israel insists on incremental negotiations with many intermediate agreements because no government has the authority to order the withdrawal of at least dozens of West Bank settlements. Since Oslo, Israeli governments have turned the peace process into a show, unwilling to reach the end, which we know would entail abandoning Jerusalem and Judea to the Muslims.

The incremental approach is extremely damaging to Israel because the Palestinians keep increasing their demands.

Immediately, the Arab League rejected the call. The Arab rejection was delivered to Mitchell by the League’s chief, Amr Moussa, a former Egyptian liaison with the PLO.

Unlike the fearful Israeli government, the Arabs are straightforward in rejecting Obama’s nonsense.

Mitchell responded that Obama does not expect the Arabs to sign peace with Israel. So, the Saudi peace initiative is confirmed dead?

The former PM confirmed a long-standing rumor that he offered the Palestinians practically the entire West Bank, all Arab-populated parts of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and admittance for some number of refugees.

At the time, Olmert thought he was playing a PR trick with Abbas (who predictably refused the offer as he does not want formal independence, but rather to remain the focus of the world’s attention). Olmert’s offer, however, set a new benchmark for Israeli concessions, and subsequent governments would find it impossible to retract it.

The Palestinians are playing with Israel the game we used to play with Arafat before, asking him repeatedly to renounce violence. After Arafat’s every statement to that effect, Israel asked for further clarification. Now Abbas wants a declaration from Netanyahu even though he has already issued such a statement.

The last thing Abbas wants is an independent state, which would be taken over by Hamas.

Solana’s suggestion would actually benefit Israel greatly. Once Palestine is established, the rest of the world will lose much of its interest in the backwater state, and its borders will be established de facto, reflecting the power balance.

Many countries, including most of Europe and Latin America, recognize Palestinian passports—and thus its independence—anyway. Retaliating against a sovereign state is also easier than attacking an “occupied territory.”

Solana can afford heated rhetoric, as he will leave his office soon.

The Palestinians understand that much, and refuse to accept independence without an agreement on borders.

Well, two decades ago Jewish control over united Jerusalem was not negotiable, either. Four decades ago a Palestinian state was out of the question, even for the Left.

Barak heads the talks because the Americans are boycotting Lieberman, who as FM must conduct the negotiations.

Netanyahu claimed that the current arrangements for demilitarization of Hezbollah and Hamas are not effective. Sure—the US supplies military equipment to Lebanon, and Iran supplies to Gaza.

If, however, demilitarization of Hezbollah and Hamas is not effective, why not attack them and demilitarize forcibly, as Netanyahu imagines we could do against the PLO? And what happened to his and Lieberman’s electoral promises to do away with Hamas?

On other hand, the last thing we want is Israel doing away with Hamas, which is the most potent force against the peace process.

As a final nail in the peace coffin, Mubarak demanded that the Palestinian state be contiguous—meaning that it should cut Israel in half with a Gaza-West Bank corridor, something out of question for the current Israeli government.

Even Jimmy Carter, a paragon of Palestinian resistance, accepted during his recent visit to Gush Etzion that the bloc must remain Jewish forever.

Palestinians cannot accept an arrangement while IDF retains freedom of operation in their state, and anything less than that is unacceptable to Israel. Abbas, too, wants IDF to operate in the West Bank to prevent a takeover by Hamas.

Abbas cannot tell the Palestinians in the refugee camps that he forfeited their right of return.

Fatah cannot accept borders which leave the Temple Mount in Israeli hands even temporarily.

Both Israel and Fatah prefer the current indecisive situation to a formal peace treaty.

According to the Maan, Abbas presented Obama with a document outlining the boundaries of a Palestinian state, signed by Russia, Britain, France, the UN, China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia.

According to A-Sharq Al-Awsat, Obama has already presented Netanyahu with a plan to finalize Israeli capitulation to Palestinian terrorists within two years.

If true, that would explain the negotiation frenzy of Arab leaders, who talk among themselves and push for Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. The Arab attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has drastically changed in the past few years: Arabs wanted the conflict before, but would prefer to end it now. Formerly a vent for popular discontent in Arab countries, the conflict has become a rallying cry for Islamists.

Hamas will unveil its own peace program hours after Netanyahu’s speech on Sunday.

Netanyahu’s refusal to pronounce the phrase “a two-state solution” is odd because even Lieberman has accepted the formula, which he expects never to materialize. It is unlikely that Bibi is deliberately upping the stakes with Obama to make a fictitious concession on the two-state issue.

Bibi cannot fail to understand that in the peace framework the demand for a construction freeze makes sense: all new houses take additional land, and it does not matter that that land has previously been walled off inside the settlements. The Americans want a strict status quo, with no more land grabs.

We have a good chance of returning to the old stalemate, where both parties agree on the goals and none can implement the means.

Abbas counts on embarrassing Obama into pressing Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state.

In his soon-to-be-announced peace platform, Netanyahu will likely engage in typical Jewish scheming instead of plainly refusing to cede Jewish land to Muslims. He will accept something short of a Palestinian state, perhaps nominal “Palestinian self-rule,” but condition it on impossible progress in curbing Palestinian terrorism.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu lacks the guts to let Hamas into the West Bank and bury Fatah along with the peace process.